Last Saturday several articles appeared previewing the contents of Hillary Clinton's economic policy speech on Monday. I was excited to see what Hillary would say to counter the Sanders boomlet. Unsurprisingly, the advisors commenting for the preview articles outlined a speech meant to make her sound left-of-center while ruffling as few feathers as possible. The gist: that middle class wage stagnation is the defining issue of our time; that automation and globalization has reduced the need for middle-skill jobs that used to pay well; and she said that the “on-demand” economy is "raising hard questions about work-place protections and what a good job will look like in the future,” a direct quote from the actual speech. Pretty topical, even-keeled stuff, right?
So having read a handful of these preview articles, I was surprised late on Saturday to see venture capitalist Marc Andreesen retweet Tea Party Senator Mike Lee’s spokesman:
For those of you who are unfamiliar, Andreesen’s Twitter feed is one of the most insightful around. So I was confused, and I skimmed the linked Politico piece, wondering if it included some strong language about the sharing economy that hadn’t been in the articles I’d read. Seeing nothing, I Tweeted back out of genuine curiosity:
at which point I kind of got burned by a billionaire:
I read the article again just to make sure I hadn’t missed something inflammatory, and again found none. "That's weird," I said to myself. I thought. "Andreesen must be more of a conservative than I thought, because how could anyone read those articles and reasonably think Hillary is 'anti-sharing economy?'" But later on, I saw neutral media outlets parroting this narrative; when I Google’d “Hillary speech,” on Sunday, the top hit was a story from Marketwatch who’s headline read, "Hillary Takes Aim At Uber Economy In Speech.” Wired and Mike Allen's Playbook published similar blurbs on Monday morning.
If people actually think Hillary opposes the sharing economy, that’s dangerous for her. And the idea is so widespread, I’m half worried that in a year one of my otherwise smart friends will say to me, “well, I was thinking about voting for Hillary because she is better on gay marriage, but now I’m thinking about Rubio because Hillary is anti-Uber, right?”
If that happens, I’m going to shit a brick, because Hillary is not anti-sharing economy, and it’s unfair for Andreesen to say she is. In her speech, Hillary expressed that these businesses are creating “exciting economies” and “unleashing innovation” while lauding the fact that "many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car.” There are plenty of people in the country and around the world who actually want to shut down the sharing economy, like taxi unions who want to ban Lyft from dropping off at the airport, or David Campos, the SF city supervisor who wants to ban short term housing rentals.
It’s possible to be concerned about how new industries are re-shaping the economy without being stubbornly opposed to those industries existing in the first place. And to a thinking person, is there any doubt in the world that the sharing economy "raises tough questions" about the employer-employee relationship in the coming decades, as Hillary said? Since when does raising legitimate questions make someone anti-anything?
When I first saw a Tea Party spokesman tweeting this reactive “Hillary is anti-Uber” nonsense, I figured it was just conservatives reaching deep for an issue position that would resonate with the city folk who are offended by so many issue positions conservatives take. But now that many outlets I trust are branding Hillary as anti-sharing economy, I’m legitimately concerned that people other than conservatives might agree.